Article 21 of indian constitution and human rights

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that life is more than just the act of breathing. It does  not suggest constant labour or a life of bare survival. It addresses a far broader variety of  concerns, including the right to a reasonable quality of living, the right to a means of support, the  right to health, the right to clean air, etc.

The right to life includes all those aspects of life that  give a man’s life meaning, joy, and value. It is necessary of our very being with out which we  cannot exist as humans. The right to life is a fundamental premise that derives the minimal  necessities, pre requisites, and core desires of a person.  

Article 21 Provides Two Rights: RIght To live according to mentioned 

1. Right to life 
2. Right to personal liberty 

One of the most important rights that its Constitution protect is the fundamental right stated in  Article 21.  This right has been referred to as the “heart of fundamental rights” by the Supreme Court of  India. 

The right says clearly that no one can be deprived of its life or free except in accordance with the  legal process. This suggests that this right is solely applicable against the State. State in this  context refers to not only the government but also government agencies, local groups,  legislatures, etc. 

Any shy citizen infringing on another person’s rights does not amount to a violation of Article  21. The victim’s remedy in this situation would be provided under Article 226 either by general  law.. 

The right to life includes far more than the capacity to survive. It also must include the ability to  live a full life with dignity and commitment. 

Article 21’s main objective is to ensure that the State only violates a person’s right to life or  liberty in accordance with the established legal process. 

Case laws based on article 21:-  

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh that “life”  refers to more than just animal existence. The prohibition against its loss pertains to all the limbs  and faculties that are used to enjoy life. The prohibition prohibits the mutilation of the body  through the deletion of an eye, an armoured leg, or any other organ through which the soul  connects to the wider world.

1. 1951’s A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras In this case, the High Court has applied a strict  interpretation of Article 21. It was concluded that only arbitrary executive activity is covered by  Article 21’s protection, not arbitrary legislative action. This implies that a statute may be  implemented by a state for deny a person the rights provided in Article 21. 
2. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978: In this case, the SC inverted itself by adopting a narrower  reading of Article 21 than it had in its Gopalan Case judgement. That one was ruled that a  person’s right to life and personal liberty can be stripped away by a law as long as the process set  forth by that law is equitable, fair, and just. Moreover, it made it clear that 

Euthanasia in india 

Passive euthanasia has been made legal in India. 

The SC legalised passive euthanasia in 2018 by allowing individuals in a permanent vegetative  condition to have life support removed. 

This choice was taken as a result of the judgement in the well-known case concerning Aruna  Shanbaug, who passed away in 2015 after more than 40 years of being in a vegetative status.The  court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. Active euthanasia is illegal in India. 

Due to the absence of euthanasia legislation in the nation, the court ruled that its ruling would  take precedence until the Indian government introduced appropriate legislation.  A tight set of rules govern the validity of passive euthanasia. 

Patients must be in a vegetative state or have a fatal disease in order to consent to this therapy  through a live will.  In a living will, a person specifies what medical procedures should be executed in the event that  they become ill or be incapable of making decisions for themselves. 

The doctor will construct a hospital medical board after informing the patient and/or his relatives  when the executor (of the living will) gets a terminal illness with no prospects for recovery. 

4 Important Factor For Right to Life and Suicide 

1. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes attempting suicide a criminal  punishable by both jail time and a fine. 
2. There have been numerous disputes about whether this should continue  because mental health professionals have insisted that those who attempt  suicide need effective counselling rather than punishment.
3. After being approved by the Parliament in 2017, the Mental Healthcare Act went  into effect in 2018. This legislation aims to “provide for mental healthcare and  services for persons with mental illness and to defend, promote, and fulfil such  persons’ rights during the provision of mental healthcare and services.” This law  makes suicide legal in India 
4. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code states that “Any individual who attempts suicide shall  be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to be under severe stress and shall not be tried and  punished under the said Code.” Suicide decriminalisation arguments: 

4. a) No one has total autonomy over his or her life. He or she has a responsibility to their family. A  person’s suicide can frequently leave a family penniless. 

4. b) Decriminalizing aiding in suicide may follow the decriminalisation of suicide. The argument against  it is that suicide alone can be decriminalised if the requisite legislation or legal guidelines are in place  to include aiding in suicide. 

Arguments in favour of decriminalising suicide: 

1. Only in this instance is an attempt at committing a crime penalised rather than the actual crime  (because a person becomes beyond the reach of law if suicide is complete). 
2. Those who are depressed and under a lot of stress will attempt or commit suicide. Suicidal  attempts require medical attention and counselling, not the strict authority of the jail warden. 
3. Giving someone the “right to die” is different from decriminalising suicide attempts. 

Conclusions : 

The Indian constitution’s framers crafted this Article in a way that neither makes any provision  obligatory nor exempts any person from the fundamental obligations that all of the nation’s  citizens are required to uphold. No rights or obligations will be omitted because this article has observed the socio-economic  structures of the countries so closely. Maybe the most distinctive aspect of our constitution that  sets it apart from those of other countries is this.